Milgram Flashcards
What’s Milgrams research method + evidence from study to justify this?
Observation
Controlled observation because they’re watching how the teachers react.
Not an experiment because there’s no independent variable.
Strengths and weaknesses of sample used in Milgrams study.
40 New Haven men aged 20-50 (wanted 500).
Range of occupations : factory workers, city employees, labourers.
No students.
Weakness: only 40 people limiting generalisability.
Only men: can’t generalise to women.
Only from New Haven: not a diverse area (wealthy).
Strengths:
Men aged 20-50 were compared to nazi soldiers in WW2.
Range of occupations and ages.
Sampling method
Strengths and weaknesses.
Self selecting sample.
Local newspaper and letters through doors.
Payed $4 or $4.50 if driven ($38.23 in 2019).
Weakness:Not everyone could’ve seen it/ discarded it as junk mail.
Volunteers could’ve been obedient because of self selecting.
Expensive.
Strength: all volunteers were willing participants as they were paid.
No researcher bias because self-selecting.
Controls in Milgrams study
- Mr Wallace’s noises.
- All payed $4 or $4.50 if driven.
- The experimenters prods.
- Shocks always went up in 15v increments. 15v-450v.
- Fixed lottery.
- Word pair task.
- All told the study was on memory and learning.
How do the student predictions compare to the qualitative results?
-students predicted that between 0-3% would go to 450v (1.2%)- predicted an insignificant minority.
-65% went to 450v.
0 participants left before 300v (bang on wall).
Qualitative results.
Watched through one way mirror to see how they behaved and what they said.
Signs of extreme tension shown: sweat, tremble, stutter, bite lips, 3 had full blown uncontrollable seizures, 14 showed nervous laughter, groan, dig fingernails into flesh.
‘I can’t do that to a man’
‘I’ll hurt his heart’
Conclusion and explanation of findings.
Conclusion:
The situation produced strong tendencies to obey but caused emotional strain and tension. Germans aren’t different and all obey authority figures.
Explanation of findings:
Took place at Yale- credible institution.
Results would be useful- so they continued.
Learner volunteered.
Participant volunteered so felt obliged to continue.
‘Chance’ that teacher was assigned that role- both had risk of being learner.
Lack of clarity about what would be overstepping limits.
Participants assured that shocks weren’t dangerous.
Researcher dressed in lab coat so seemed competent.
Ethical guidelines broken and upheld.
Break:
Protection from harm- emotionally traumatised after causing harm to another human e.g. 3 had seizures, sweating, stressed.
Deception- tricked into thinking the experiment was a memory test. They didn’t know Mr Wallace was fine/ volunteer + fixed lottery.
Informed consent- didn’t know the study was on obedience but volunteered.
Right to withdraw- the prods meant they had to continue (partially), they should’ve been able to withdraw the first time they objected.
Confidentiality- they took a video and we saw his face, we knew where they were from.
Uphold:
Debriefing- They were told the real purpose + they met Mr Wallace.
Confidentiality- Identity wasn’t revealed.
Was the study ethnocentric? Was it only applicable to America? Where else was it done?
Eventhough the study was carried out in he experiment was repeated in other cultures (USA females, students from Jordan) and similar results were found.
Internally and externally reliable?
Internally:
Yes it was standardised and replicable because it was highly controlled so each participant had the same experience (prods, fixed draws, 300v response, learning task, sample shock).
External:
Yes, there were 40 participants that showed consistent results.
It was backed up by study replications.
Internally and externally valid?
Internal:
The other reasons for their behaviour that meant it wasn’t testing obedience could be their payment (making them feel obliged to continue), Yale was a highly regarded university which meant participants may have thought the test was useful and they would’ve believed the experimenter.
Though it was controlled- so no other variables influenced the results.
External (population):
The sample can’t be generalised from because it only tested men ages 20-40 who lived in the same place though the men had a range of jobs.
Though it was replicated in other places with females.
External (ecological):
The scenario wasn’t true to life because unlike the Nazis, the men wouldn’t fear there’d be personal consequences.
It’s also not everyday you shock people.
Procedure: behavioural study of obedience.
- You and Mr Wallace (the confederate) pick from a fixed lottery. You are the teacher and Mr Wallace is the learner.
- You see him strapped into a chair with electrodes strapped to his arms.
- you’re given a trial shock of 45 volts.
- The learner has been given a set of word pairs to remember and the teachers task is to check he remembers them.
- The teacher reads the word pairs for the learner to remember and the teacher then reads a single word and there’s 4 options for the learner to choose from.
- If he answers incorrectly you are told to give him an electric shock. Every time the answer is wrong you increase the voltage by 15v from 15 to 450v.
- At 300v, Mr Wallace bangs on the wall and again at 315v
- After 315v he stops answering the questions and is silent but you are told to continue (as no answer is seen as an incorrect answer).
- 4 prods were used to urge the participant to continue: ‘please continue’, ‘the experiment requires you to continue’, ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’, ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’. If the teacher declines again, the experiment will stop.
Background and aim
-In 1960, Adolf Eichmann was arrested for being a nazi officer in WW2. He claimed that he was only following orders and was therefore not guilty. After WW2 people believed Germans had a defect that made them blindly obedient.
Aim- To investigate the process of obedience by testing how far ordinary Americans would go in obeying an authority figure, even if it causes them to disobey their own morals.
How is Milgrams study situational and individual?
Situational:
- if they weren’t in a situation where they couldn’t escape (train) they might have just walked past.
- state of victim (drunk or ill).
- clear situation unlike Kitty Genovese.
- wasn’t much effort to help.
Individual:
- They didn’t have to help the victim as there were many other people there. They had a choice (though no diffusion of responsibility found).
- gender (male helped 90%).
